“First and foremost, I have to say I’m not here as a Baltimore Raven,” Ayanbadejo said, via Erik Brady of USA Today. “I’m actually here as a patriot — as a patriot to uphold the Constitution of the United States. . . .

“So this is a fight that we’ve seen here before, we’ve been here before. How is this any different than Loving v. Virginia?” he added, in reference to the case that scuttled bans on interracial marriage.

“Luckily, I’m a child of the ’70s, because in some states in the ’60s, I wouldn’t be here. So I’m a testament to progress. I’m a testament to things are changing. Love is always going to win the game,” Ayanbadejo said.

A ruling is expected in June. But the very early indications aren’t promising.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative with a cousin in attendance who wants to marry her partner, offered this confusing comparison while questioning one of the lawyers: “If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend. I suppose you can force the child to say ‘this is my friend,’ but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that’s, it seems to me, what [supporters] of Proposition 8 are saying here. All you’re interested in is the label, and you insist on changing the definition of the label.”

Whether the definition changes depends on what the definition is. Does “marriage” reflect a committed union of two persons of different genders, or simply two persons?

The word “friend” doesn’t imply a gender. Should the term “spouse”?

That’s easiest way to address concerns that same-sex marriage would result in a union between a man and a dog or a man and a sandwich. Defining the term as a marriage between two persons would prevent the parade of horribles that so often is cited by those who opposed same-sex marriage.

My own views on the subject flow from apathy regarding the private business of others and stubbornness regarding our inalienable right to pursue happiness. If it makes people of the same gender happy to be married, why should that bother me or anyone else?

How about we just do away with “marriage” altogether? It’s a sham anyway… with how high the divorce rate and how frequent people cheat.

I don’t need a piece of paper or a “law” to allow me to be with the people or person I want to be with.

Stop letting the government control you. If all this is… is about getting some sort of tax reduction, then you’re missing the point you’re trying to make anyway.

If this is truly about love… well, um, stop crying and just be with those you love. Put a ring on a finger and call your significant other whatever you want. Wife, Husband, Lover, Life-Partner… whatever. Nobody is stopping you from doing that. Who cares what the government says? Stop giving them all the power.

At the same time, people who say marriage is just about love are entirely incorrect. Marriage as a social institution is designed solely with the idea of procreation in mind. If marriage were just about love, well, why would anyone get married? Most married couples wind up hating each other after ten years of living under the same roof anyway.

Seen divorce rates lately? Good grief. And that doesn’t take into account how many marriages remain intact ONLY because of the kids or because the couple’s religion forbids divorce (i.e. Catholicism), The number of “happy married” couples is limited.

I also don’t buy for one second Ayanbadejo’s assertion of how many NFL players support gay marriage. I’d say roughly 80% of players would be uncomfortable (at best) having a gay player in the locker room.

It seems like more players favor gay marriage than they actually do because most of them realize coming out as against it is media suicide. Chris Culliver gave his own opinion and got his pretty face destroyed in the media.

Conversely, those like Ayanbadejo who come out in support of it are treated like heroes.

It is his right, I just don’t know what the value of a football player’s words means to this fight. Common sense and decency needs to be the catalyst here, not the name of a man in football. This is a battle with implications of constitutional rights, not the opportunity for grandstanding for public opinion. Ultimately, this is fight on how we define a word, sadly it is that stupid.

Can we please stop with the agenda? I don’t care what one does behind close doors, but the full court press is ridiculous. From every TV show introducing “a couple”, to now the highest level of sports. What’s next? Can I marry my dog, PETA said it’s ok.

At the same time, people who say marriage is just about love are entirely incorrect. Marriage as a social institution is designed solely with the idea of procreation in mind. If marriage were just about love, well, why would anyone get married? Most married couples wind up hating each other after ten years of living under the same roof anyway.

Seen divorce rates lately? Good grief. And that doesn’t take into account how many marriages remain intact ONLY because of the kids or because the couple’s religion forbids divorce (i.e. Catholicism), The number of “happy married” couples is limited.

Cliffnotes – marriage is overrated.

_________________

Plenty of people get married that dont want or can’t have kids. Try again.

But why do gay marriage supporters get to draw the moral line? Why can’t two loving siblings marry or multiple partners marry. These groups do exist and they feel as passionate about their situation as proponents of gay marriage. You see, a line has to be drawn somewhere. This country is changing before our very eyes into one that is ran by emotion and feelings…..that is a dangerous thing.

therealpittbull says:
Mar 26, 2013 3:43 PM
Can we please stop with the agenda? I don’t care what one does behind close doors, but the full court press is ridiculous. From every TV show introducing “a couple”, to now the highest level of sports. What’s next? Can I marry my dog, PETA said it’s ok.

__________________

Marrige is a legal binding contract that consententing adults can enter into that is recognized by the government. Does your dog meet those requirements?

Marriage has been re-defined several times throughout the history of this country. At one time it was not against the law to be married to multiple women at the same time (polygamy). At one time you could only marry someone of the same race. You could have also marry a 13 year old girl. Therefore, I don’t want to hear all the sanctimonious garbage about marriage only being between man and woman. The world is evolving. Our laws should reflect that. Ironic how all the conservative people who rail against big government, want government to prevent two consenting adults from forming a contract of devotion to each other.

I also find it ironic how so many in my own community, African- American are also against equal rights for all.

For those that can’t handle a discussion of social topics on a football site, don’t read the article. No one forced you to read the article. It’s Florio’s creation and he can express any thought that he wishes.

Comments and questions by the Justices shouldn’t be taken as any signal of leaning one way or another.

Roberts looked like he would’ve ruled to struck down the Affordable Act(Obamacare) questioning the individual mandate. But in the end he ruled to uphold the legislation. Kennedy who everyone expected to lean towards upholding it, voted to strike it down.

I forgot which Justice said it but he/she enjoyed making the lawyers squirm defending their position even if they agreed with them anyways.

If this is truly about love… well, um, stop crying and just be with those you love. Put a ring on a finger and call your significant other whatever you want. Wife, Husband, Lover, Life-Partner… whatever. Nobody is stopping you from doing that. Who cares what the government says? Stop giving them all the power.”

This actually happened to someone I know. Told parents they were gay, parents disowned her. Started a business, eventually found a woman, lived as wife & wife for years unable to get married. She died suddenly in a car wreck, no will. Estate was awarded to the parents who hadn’t spoken to her in 20+ years and disowned her and not to her partner who got NOTHING.

Not being gay, I don’t care who marries who. Their marriage doesn’t affect me. What happened to my friend was wrong, and the same could happen to a boy/girlfriend with no will. All I am saying is recognize their marriage. If you don’t like seeing it – tough. Some people still don’t like seeing interracial marrages, but they have to get over it.

Just let gay people do what they want. They aren’t going to hurt anyone else by showing a similar level of commitment that straight people make, and it won’t belittle marriages which were performed in the traditional sense. I don’t care if gay people get married, there are plenty who have been long enough to be practically married for years now anyway. If they want to exchange rings and have the same legal rights, who cares? If they want to be equally unhappy as the rest of the married folks out there, let them lol…

“godofwine330 says: Mar 26, 2013 4:01 PM
Estate was awarded to the parents who hadn’t spoken to her in 20+ years and disowned her and not to her partner who got NOTHING.

Not being gay, I don’t care who marries who. Their marriage doesn’t affect me. What happened to my friend was wrong, and the same could happen to a boy/girlfriend with no will. All I am saying is recognize their marriage. If you don’t like seeing it – tough. Some people still don’t like seeing interracial marrages, but they have to get over it.”

Your story has more to do with the stupidity of not making a will then anything else. If a gay person gets married, gets a divorce, get a new spouse, but hadn’t changed their will from the last marriage their last spouse would still get nothing.

Oh, two adults. You mean like brother and sister, sister and sister, grandfather and grandson? And why just two people? Why not thirty? A thousand? And who are you to judge the love of a man and his four year old niece? Who comes up with these arbitrary restrictions on “love”?

Here’s an idea.. Why don’t you try leaving the idiotic social engineering to others and focus on the reason people come here: sports.

Maybe its just me but he is in the news more for gay rights then what he does on the football field.
Case in point, with all of the losses the Ravens have had at LB, his name has not been mentioned as a possible replacement.
Think about it.

@godofwine330 – You nailed it sir, that’s what it is all about: granting legal marriage rights to gay couples. Its not about redefining anything or making churches marry gay people, it is about gay couples having the same legal rights as married straight couples. If they have to call it a “civil union” I am OK with that too, just make it so that we all have equal rights.

Personally, I also think that government banning gay couples from marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and if the Court doesn’t rule that way it is nothing more than a thinly veiled partisan sham…just like Congress.

Gay people CAN get married under the law already. They just simply choose not to due to their orientation/preferences.

The real comedy here is that clowns like Ayanbadejo Kluwe, et al have fully convinced the uneducated American public that there is some huge violation of civil rights and inequality here. If people stopped and thought about it for one millisecond, they’d realize this has nothing to do with “inequality” and everything to do with changing our laws based on an individual preferences and opinions. That is a REAL dangerous slope to go down.

Enough of this crap! Lets get real:
1. This is NOT football news
2. Marriage was created and defined by God not the constitution
3. ALL people should have the same 101 rights that are given in marriage.
4. Just don’t call it marriage
5. If you have issue with this, take it up with God -Marriage is his institution!!!

Enough of this crap! Lets get real:
1. This is NOT football news
2. Marriage was created and defined by God not the constitution
3. ALL people should have the same 101 rights that are given in marriage.
4. Just don’t call it marriage
5. If you have issue with this, take it up with God -Marriage is his institution!!!

Ummm… wow. Just throwing this out there, but there is, you know, the chance that God doesn’t exist. There’s honestly no proof.

I think that everyone that likes to eat pizza should acknowledge that I like calzone better, should make it so all pizza is called calzone because thats what I prefer, you know, what the hell, lets redefine pizza to be a type of calzone because anything else is discriminating against calzone!

How ignorant are you? Let me think this through… Islamist people get married, Christian people can get married, Athiests can get married, even Devil Worshipers can get married… but two people who love each other would upset God more than any of those people??? Doesn’t sound like a very fair God to me.

I also don’t buy for one second Ayanbadejo’s assertion of how many NFL players support gay marriage. I’d say roughly 80% of players would be uncomfortable (at best) having a gay player in the locker room.

———————————————————–

Yes, I am sure you have a much more accurate take on the pulse of an NFL locker room unlike the guy who actually is in an NFL locker room every day of the season. I am also sure you are way more qualified to give me medical advice than a doctor and way more qualified to give me legal advice than a sitting judge.

Most of the nation is finally coming to terms with the fact that everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. That locker rooms would be mostly tolerant of a gay teammate isn’t a crazy notion but simple common sense. Enough people have a gay friend or relative at this point that no rational person really has a leg to stand on when it comes to discriminating against the gay community in any workplace, the NFL included.

Those of you who say they arent redefining anything….they are. Its a fact. Marriage has always been viewed as man/woman. I dont understand why gays couldnt just settle for a union. Most people wouldve been fine with that.

And if you dont think they arent next going to be pushing for churches to be forced to perform ceremonies, think again. They will.

And you might as well just legalize any type of “marriage” at this point if this goes forward. Multiple people, cousins, etc. If we can change from a man and woman to guy/guy woMan/woMAN then why not just allow everything else? You says it just about “love” well some people love multiple people. Some people love each other who happen to be related in some way. Are you a bigot now if you are against those instances as you say those are who are against gays marrying?

Quoting Tom Keane: “Same-sex marriage, obviously, doesn’t involve any destruction of potential life. And while there are some who argue that permitting gays to marry hurts traditional marriage, the data from states with same-sex marriage don’t bear that out. Divorce rates in Massachusetts, for instance, have declined in the last 10 years. In fact, far from undermining marriage, the battle for same-sex marriage really is an affirmation of its importance. Why fight for something unless you think it has great value?”

Gay Marriage has great value, to the children of gay couples and the couples themselves. It also does a great service to our country, making true that all men and women are equal under the law and treated as such.

Im to the point where its time to give them what they want so they shut up about it and we hear less about gays.

If we used common sense, government wouldnt have anything to do with marriage. They would view all partnerships as a domestic contract/partnership. Marriage stays as man and woman and dictated by getting MARRIED at a church. So gays get what they want by government viewing all couples as domestic partnerships instead of marriage. Others get what they want as marriage technically stays as man and woman.

Why is God in my laws, and why is gay marriage in my football news? Any two consenting adults should be able to be afforded the same rights for transfer of assets, protection against forced testimony, ect ect.

I don’t think marriage between two straight people should be a legal institution. Doug Stanhope had a funny bit where he echos those thoughts. He says if marriage as a legal institution were not around, would you ever look at your parter and say “baby, what we have is so good we should get the government in on this.” The point being that you can marry or do whatever you want without the government regulating it. The government should stay out of moral issues.

Please do not mix politics with football. I could care less about what any football player’s social views are.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
So he’s not allowed an opinion? If you don’t like what he says, then don’t read it.

Why is God in my laws, and why is gay marriage in my football news? Any two consenting adults should be able to be afforded the same rights for transfer of assets, protection against forced testimony, ect ect.

OK, so lets get back to talking about Teo’s crappy 40 times mmmkay?

Sorry to dissapoint you but America’s principles were founded on religion. If you take away any mention of God in public you are basically saying what you believe in and where you get your morals from is not acceptable in public.

stevent92 says:
Mar 26, 2013 4:13 PM
Gay people CAN get married under the law already. They just simply choose not to due to their orientation/preferences.

The real comedy here is that clowns like Ayanbadejo Kluwe, et al have fully convinced the uneducated American public that there is some huge violation of civil rights and inequality here. If people stopped and thought about it for one millisecond, they’d realize this has nothing to do with “inequality” and everything to do with changing our laws based on an individual preferences and opinions. That is a REAL dangerous slope to go down.

__________

Black people can go to school and drink from water fountains. Why does it matter if its seperate but equal?

Loving consenting adults will be able to get married. What a horrible slippery slope!

If you don’t believe in God, your choice…..Ponder this- even Satan worshipers believe there is a God BTW…I sincerely encourage you to study the BIBLE before dismissing it.
———————————————————-

How does the reference to Satan worshipers prove anything? Obviously if you believe in an antichrist, he has to be anti-something, right?

On a micro level, religion and faith are beautiful things for an individual to have. On a macro level it can be a form of social control and dangerous group think. That’s my perception and experience of 12 years of Catholic School.

Gay people CAN get married under the law already. They just simply choose not to due to their orientation/preferences.

The real comedy here is that clowns like Ayanbadejo Kluwe, et al have fully convinced the uneducated American public that there is some huge violation of civil rights and inequality here. If people stopped and thought about it for one millisecond, they’d realize this has nothing to do with “inequality” and everything to do with changing our laws based on an individual preferences and opinions. That is a REAL dangerous slope to go down.

dondiraider says:
Mar 26, 2013 4:43 PM
I am sorry for you if you do not believe in God….maybe you feel the same for me….If I am living a fairy tail, no harm. However if you are- you tell me? And if you cannot, please study the bible.

___________

And you chose this fairy tale over the other 1,000s man has created why?

Gay people CAN get married under the law already. They just simply choose not to due to their orientation/preferences.

The real comedy here is that clowns like Ayanbadejo Kluwe, et al have fully convinced the uneducated American public that there is some huge violation of civil rights and inequality here. If people stopped and thought about it for one millisecond, they’d realize this has nothing to do with “inequality” and everything to do with changing our laws based on an individual preferences and opinions. That is a REAL dangerous slope to go down.”

It seems to me that you may be apart of the uneducated that you disparage. It has everything do with equality and it is false that people can get married if they want. You can call yourself married, but if your marriage is not recognized by the government, you are not entitled to the benefits that other married couples receive, whether it be in the tax code or privacy rights. Does that somewhat illustrate the discrepancy in the the equality to you? Marriage as it is now, is defined on a state level. You have some states where you have common law spouses. But if SCOTUS upholds the federal appellate court ruling and rules prop 8 unconstitutional, then it will be illegal for any state to bar the same gender from getting married.

Also, the fact that you state that being gay is an individual preference already displays your ignorance and bigotry, so I doubt that you will even absorb what I just stated.

i dont understand the idea of allowing anyone to vote, something that affects hundreds of millions of people, while at the same time preventing certain people from getting married…..Its nonsensical really……. just let them get married, why do people care soo much about it?

Gay people being married absolutely changes lives. Christians or other religious people will be discriminated against in employment. Take the New Mexico Christian photographer fined $6,000 for refusing to photograph a lesbian ceremony out of religious conviction. Once gay is seen as normal, gay teachings will invade public schools. Your 2nd grader will read “A King and a King”, your middle schooler will attend mandatory gay marriage chapels, and your high schooler will learn details about gay sex. No opt outs for any of this and this is the tip of the iceberg. Down the road, churches may be forced to marry gays or hire gay employees against their own beliefs. This is not about tolerance anymore, it is about forced acceptance. And by changing the word marriage and its definition, marriage will become something few strive for anymore as it no longer means anything…more kids out of wedlock.

NYjetsknicks fan…regarding the 14th Amendment, first off gays have an equal ability to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like all of us. Secondly, gays can’t accidentally get pregnant. They never, ever can naturally produce a child. So the idea that we are comparing apples to apples if false, two completely different dynamics. Therefore equal protection should not apply.

justice roberts is correct. Marriage is between a man and a women. Gays want to change that fact that it means a married of two people so they can feel normal. To hear people compare it to interacial couples seems absurd to me but then again if you want to compare being born as a person of color to someone with a mental disorder by all means go ahead.

I am sorry for you if you do not believe in God….maybe you feel the same for me….If I am living a fairy tail, no harm. However if you are- you tell me? And if you cannot, please study the bible.
———————————————————–
I do feel the same for you…because the Raiders are going to be a real devil of a football team next year. I do feel better knowing that you can skip watching that garbage and can spend your entire Sundays reading the Bible and coming onto PFT offering studious and well-informed political opinions.

Also, why do you feel sorry for him? What if he doesn’t believe in God, but he lives a more Christian life than you do based on his actions and not merely his professed love for God or voting the way he thinks God wants him to? What if God values what we actually say and do more than what we think we know? What if God wants us to let others be and leave the question of their worthiness up to him alone? What if God is sick of us acting like we know what he wants and wants us to leave that up to him?

Also, why did God create human beings? I have yet to hear an acceptable answer to this question. Since you are our resident Bible scholar perhaps you will take a crack at it for me?

ace8842 says:
Mar 26, 2013 4:41 PM
States right issue. Federal government has not right to jump in like they did on abortion, creating rights out of thin air.

____________________________________

bro learn english before you make any kind of legal comment…it helps the credibility along 😉 …. let me help.. The Federal Governement DOES not HAVE the right to jump in like they did IN REGARDS TO abortion……….oh by the way everything you said was BS, oh and earth is a lot older than 5,000 years old….

“So he’s not allowed an opinion? If you don’t like what he says, then don’t read it.”

If I wanted to read about gay marriage, I’d go to cnn.com. I come to this website called profootballtalk.com to read about PRO FOOTBALL, not the debate about gay marriage.

If you want to debate on anything other than football, I’d suggest you look elsewhere.”

Thanks for engaging in the debate. You know what they say about opinions. Never disputed his right to an opinion. Just like I stated mine, he has the right to state his. I said that he doesn’t have to read the article. So in an odd sort of way your defending me having a right to an opinion. Thanks for defending me, man:-)

ace8842 says:
Mar 26, 2013 4:57 PM
NYjetsknicks fan…regarding the 14th Amendment, first off gays have an equal ability to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like all of us. Secondly, gays can’t accidentally get pregnant. They never, ever can naturally produce a child. So the idea that we are comparing apples to apples if false, two completely different dynamics. Therefore equal protection should not apply.

___________________

I already addressed the issue with kids above. They don’t have the ability to marry the consenting adult they love. Why does it bother you that two same-sex consenting adults get married? Why aren’t you making it tougher for everyone to get married? Drunken Vegas marriage is fine. Same-sex loving couple that love each wrong. Makes sense…

Couple things…to all the people saying this is football site and its not football news. You’re an idiot. It’s a football player and no one forced you to click on the title of the article AYENBEDAYJO SPEAKS AT SUPREME COURT RALLY. You knew exactly what it would be about, then took the time to comment.

Why do people who are gay have to “settle” for civil unions? That’s the whole point. Who says you get a right to marriage that they don’t?

I don’t believe in God at all. You are free to believe in whatever you want and I dont care. But, YOU ARE NEVER allowed to push your view on me in any form or fashion. I don’t want to hear it. I don’t care what our uneducated founders believed 400 years ago.

No clue if you read this Mike but well done. You may be a “Internet hack” as you put it but to support something that controversial with your own words must make your family proud. Not many people risk alienating readers, but I respect your regard for equality over views.

I am glad to know that ‘the2013miamidolphins’ knows everything about everything (was that correct syntax sir?) – we are safe here folks – the one who knows all is a PFT fan…move along, there is nothing else to see here…

If I were Ozzie Newsome, I would cut Ayanbedjo not because he supports gay rights but because his production is not outweighed by the distractions he brings to the football team. There are plenty of free agents that can produce as 4th string LBs and on special teams. Then Ayanbedjo can focus all his time on social issues.

Florio, it seems like the “Days Without a Same-Sex Marriage Story” counter is in a tough competition with the “Days Without An Arrest” counter. May both counters run high because I come here to read and talk about football. Not about a very divisive political issue. We can debate same-sex marriage on a lot of other sites.

HEY – I am a conservative and I am in favor of gay marriage, so stop being a bigot against conservatives.
———————————————————-
Great point, people need to realize that their are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Fiscal conservatives are the ones you can respect and can engage in intelligent conversation with, even if you don’t agree with them. They are the ones in which compromise can be found. I’m more of a fiscal conservative than I am a fiscal liberal, although I’m largely a moderate…for lack of a better term.

Social conservatives are the lying hypocrites and despots who want America to emerge as a Christian government much like the Islamists in the Middle East. They are hardliners and the greatest threat to our version of freedom and liberty. There is a reason social conservatives no longer want Thomas Jefferson in their kid’s history books. They are retelling America’s story as one of a religious nation and working hard to reform our government in their image. This is the single greatest threat to our nation and our form of liberty and its intensified a lot since the early 80’s. They all claim to be champions of freedom and liberty, but look at how much they want to curtail freedoms. You are free to work hard and to believe in God (their version of God, not Catholicism, etc.) under their system and that’s it. Yeah, fine, you think I’m a crackpot, but please just pay attention over the next 30 years, especially to how states in the Bible belt are governed.

The best comment by Florio, and best argument by anyone that is for same-sex marriage, is that we live in a free country, so why should we (the government, you, me, etc.) step in to prevent two people from marrying? Who is this really bothering? Who are we to tell people they can’t do something because we have personal beliefs to the contrary?

Why do nonsensical issues like gay marriage and abortion get so much press, when essentially they are really individual choices and not the business of government? Because that same government wants you all hot and bothered about THESE issues, and not asking questions like, “how come over a trillion dollars was looted from the economy in 2007 -8, and yet not a SINGLE person has even gone on trial, let alone gotten convicted.

See, if you are all debating, regardless of what side you take, these “moral issues”, the powers that be, can continue to hoodwink you with anything that’s even slightly complex.

It’s like the Wizard of Oz. “Ignore the man behind the curtain”. Keep looking at my right hand, while I take your wallet with my left.

Like so many have said, who cares. Why are we getting so emotional about this, when there are so many REAL and important issues that we refuse to get involved with because we are too damned lazy to take the time to understand anything that can’t be framed in a black/white format.

When democracy ends in this country, it won’t be because anyone took it away, it will be because we GAVE it away.

You are not a bigot if you disagree with with gay marriage everybody is entitled to believe morally what they want. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman I don’t hate a gay people i am actually cool with some of them. People have there on own beliefs about it for some its a religious belief so gay marriage people should respect that also just as non gay marriage people should do the same.

I’ll bet the majority of people supporting gay marriage on this site have no issue with limiting magazine capacity on weapons or taking away certain rifles because they’re scary looking. I’ll also bet you have no problem with Obamacare requiring the Catholic church to pay for birth control to their employees.

This actually happened to someone I know. Told parents they were gay, parents disowned her. Started a business, eventually found a woman, lived as wife & wife for years unable to get married. She died suddenly in a car wreck, no will. Estate was awarded to the parents who hadn’t spoken to her in 20+ years and disowned her and not to her partner who got NOTHING.

I call BS. Independent enough to come to parents like that, smart enough to start a successful business, and loves their partner. BUT… didn’t buy life insurance or have a will?

Several times over the past few years when I post a comment on PFT that mentions the fact that in 2008, PFT was running ads that supported California’s hateful Proposition 8 banning marriage equality, my comments were removed.

Today, in response to this story I again posted a comment that reminded Mr. Florio that PFT was running “Yes on 8” ads in 2008.

My comment was removed, but what has been allowed to remain is a litany of comments from bigoted, ignorant, anti-gay PFT readers.

Luckily, I copied my comment in case it was removed, so that I could re-post it. Here it is:

Where does it say in the constitution you can play football? Where does it say in the constitution you can own an assault rifle? Where does it say in the constitution you have the right to an abortion?

It doesn’t. The constitution is a framework of rights, not a laundry list of freedoms and prohibitions.

Therefore the U.S. Supreme Court is often asked to interpret certain laws to determine if the constitution supports them. Today, the Court was asked to determine if the constitution upholds the right for states to ban same sex marriage.

It was only 4 short years ago when I came to PFT to escape the back and forth of the heated argument playing out in California about Prop 8, a divisive ballot initiative to take away the rights of same sex couples in California to marry.

Sadly, as the PFT page loaded with the NFL headlines of the day, a large advertisement supporting Prop 8 appeared alongside those PFT headlines. This was before the PFT/NBC merger, so the decision to support Prop 8 was clearly Mr. Florio’s, and his alone.

It’s nice to read Mr. Florio has evolved on the issue and now describes his opinion on the issue of marriage equality as apathetic.

Words have meaning. If we start redefining words then society loses another standard.
2. Marriage is a covenant ordained by God. Government barged in and started forcing people to follow their rules in regards to marriage.
3. Because government has already barged in and forced people to follow their rules regarding marriage, there is nothing to stop them from forcing churches from performing same sex ceremonies.
4. There is also nothing stopping them from defining what same sex unions mean.
5. Because of that, it’s bizarre to me that any group would want the government to define anything for them.
6. That’s not freedom.
7. Real equality would be a government that is not in charge of marriage.

I appreciate your position on the Prop 8 matter, but we as residents of the pathetic state of California already voted on it and a decision was realized by the peopl and for the people. Now, SCOTUS just heard arguments over the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, something that was presented before the electorate, voted upon, and passed back in 2008. The opponents of Proposition 8 decided they did not like the results of the peoples’ democratic decision, so they took it to the courts. Now we have the courts potentially overruling the referendum of the people. Is this a case of legislating from the bench to appease a special interest group? If the people decided by vote on the matter, should that not settle the issue? Or have we come to a point in America where a minority special interest can protest and use the court system to mandate their whims and desires? I thought the right of free speech and expression extended to everyone – even conservatives.

Ayanbadejo aside, I don’t understand what this topic has to do with pro football. Players probably lobby on everything from local zoning issues to gun control, and we don’t read about it here. However, I’ve long admired your feel for click-magnet topics. It’s your greatest gift.

But did you have to share the Chief Justice’s quote? As if that evil imp Scalia weren’t enough, now we learn Roberts may be a few Cheerios short of a bowl, too.

Sanityinsd said: “If the people decided by vote on the matter, should that not settle the issue? Or have we come to a point in America where a minority special interest can protest and use the court system to mandate their whims and desires?”
______________________________________

In America, the majority is not permitted to put the fundamental rights of the minority up for a vote. In fact, the framers of the constitution decried the tyranny of the majority over the minority and created fundamental rights that cannot be taken away.

Just because the initiative process in California allows a citizen to stand outside a Walmart and gather enough signatures to put a proposition on the ballot does not mean the proposition is constitutional.

Half of all California propositions are later determined to be fully or partially unconstitutional, and then thrown out. Proposition 8 is a perfect example.

Some of the tougher people I’ve ever run into have been gay who made no secret of it. It takes guts to stand up to the prejudice they face.

We’re all human and its time to stop discriminating against gays.

Then we need to stop discriminating against drugies , those who have sex with animals , those who inbreed (packer fans know what im talking about) those who have multible sposes , after all they were all born that way.

So if I choose to be a murderer, pedophile, practitioner of bestiality, practitioner of incest, or abhorrent of any kind – it is OK because I chose to do that and should get financial benefits for my life partner because I chose to do something that is not acceptable in any way except by those who do the same thing. And the NFL – via it’s employees – will support that? Got it.

To sanityinsd: “And thanks to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the liberal insanity in California will continue to overturn rational thought from the voices of its people.”

I guess I need to remind you the liberal insanity you decry also voted to pass Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage in California. The same liberal insanity voted against legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

The 9th Circuit is a court that represents western states, not just California. They voted to uphold a lower court ruling that determined Prop 8 was unconstitutional. I believe the SCOTUS will do the same.

prmpft says: “So if I choose to be a murderer, pedophile, practitioner of bestiality, practitioner of incest, or abhorrent of any kind – it is OK because I chose to do that and should get financial benefits for my life partner because I chose to do something that is not acceptable in any way except by those who do the same thing. And the NFL – via it’s employees – will support that? Got it.”

If you choose to be a murderer you have broken a penal code and taken away the right of your victim to live. If you act on your pedophilia you have harmed a child. If you practice bestiality you have harmed an animal.

If you marry a consenting adult of either sex, who have you harmed? No one.

There is no right to murder, there is no right to pedophilia, there is no right to bestiality, because all of those things cause harm.

However, 14 separate times the SCOTUS has declared the right to marriage is not only a fundamental right, it is “the most fundamental right” a person has: to marry the person of their choice.

Just because I don’t support gay marraige I am a bigot? Thats funny. I’ve hired gay people before and treated them with the same respect as all of my other employees. I have even had discussions with them about this very issue, in a respectful manner. I think you are mistaking my firmness in my beliefs with bigotry. In fact, me being called a bigot , narrow minded, and stupid makes you the bigot my friend. Just because my beliefs are that gay marriage is wrong, does not mean I am throwing mud at gay people or calling them names, or discriminsating in anyway.

Very mixed on this as i have friend that are gay. And im a Homeboy for Brendon (PutoSANTACRUZ!!!)

In the NFL or any locker room, i think the diffcult part is being unconfortable… You think Any women wants to shower in front of 52 other guys… that she wont fell them checking her out… Eye Favring her… That understandable.

Same feeling for staight men with a gay teammate. How do you not feel violated, or stop him from checking you out, hitting on you, making you uncomfortable?

Does that mean a special shower and locker room for that player?

Does that change the way he tackles and stay on top longer or how you tackle, grab, engage someone…

If you live women, and your married or in a relationship… if you see a smoking hot women most of us tent to glance… Human nature. How would a gay teammate turn that off? And not check out everyone in the shower… size them up?

If someone wants to be gay, good for them. But the special interest, special rights, recognigtion… Why cant it just be “DONT ASK, DONT TELL”

Do your job, and what you do at home is your biz?

So is there a Civil Union, or other term that can be used? On the form now it has a spot for Husband and a Spot for Wife. now its going to be a new form? Husband/Husband…etc

Is a solution to call it Marriage 2.0… Civil Union? Give them same Tax breaks?

If things are different, but they want the equal rights of being married, then anything wrong with calling it “New Union” “Civil Union” “GLBTG UNION or GLBTGMarriage”

Why cant a catagory be added to describe what it is? If Marriage is defined as a Man and a Woman. And this is not a man and a woman. Then call it something different and give the same rights. can we make a deal on that?

We all want people to pursue happieness, and Freedom of choice. If the issue is calling it the same thing and it is close but not the same thing… call it something else… Hair…Hare Were or Where?

cowboysfansteve says: “Let same sex couples be together, but a marriage is between a man and woman. Plain and simple. If same sex couples want something of meaning. Call it a union. Not marriage.”

____________________________________

You seem to forget the government provides benefits to married couples that are not available to couples in same sex unions. If the government wants to discriminate in that way it must explain why it has chosen to do so. The reasons must be rational and based on more than moral disapproval.

Providing the benefits of marriage while withholding the word “marriage” is discrimination and is based on nothing more than moral disapproval.

Don’t believe me? Take a gander at the majority of the above comments comparing being gay to murder, pedophilia and bestiality.

I am shocked and disgusted by the amount of ignorance, hatred and bigotry being spouted on this page. Simply disgusting.

For those saying it’s just about love, explain that to a same sex partner who is in a committed relationship but unable to marry each other, who can’t collect benefits if the other passes away. A right married couples have.

There are so many levels that people are just plain wrong or ignorant about on this topic it just amazes me. How does a same sex couple getting married affect you? Why the fear and hatred? I just don’t get it.

Don’t believe me? Take a gander at the majority of the above comments comparing being gay to murder, pedophilia and bestiality.

All of those acts could be described accurately as perversions. Sex was created for procreation and a husband and wife to enjoy under a marraige approved by God. God also does not permit a man to sodomize his wife. That too is perverted.

Sex was created for procreation and a husband and wife to enjoy under a marraige approved by God.
————————————————-
And so Christian couples who are not able to procreate are not allowed to have sex? Then all couples stop having sex after the female goes through menopause? Right. Sex does serve other purposes than procreation.

God gave each of us free will. If you and I choose to be believers, we have that right. If others choose not to believe, they have that right. It’s not for any of us to tell others who to be, how to live, or whom to marry. Live, let live, and leave the rest to God.

Let’s just legalize gay marriage already so we can move on and work on stopping baby murdering a.k.a. abortion. Oh wait, that’s not a liberal cause. I guess we won’t ever talk about that anymore in the mainstream. We only discuss and support liberal causes in the mainstream media.

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Permitting only certain types of people the benefit of marriage is a denial of equal protection.

And as for “states rights” hysterics — the states do not get to apply their own interpretations of Constitutional issues.

I am really surprised at how many people are so ignorant of this situation.

States right? Yes marriage is left to the states but discrimination can be stopped by the federal government. I am sure you are also going to tell me how incredibly DOMA is because it is done by the federal government right? you will have no problem with SCOTUS throwing DOMA out tommorow, I am sure you were so disgusted when it was signed in 1996 right, kept saying states rights then?

Not in the constitution? Uh..life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or maybe the 14th amendment.

Religion? ok so only religious people get married? I know plenty of people that aren’t religious that get married. Why should your religion dictate to someone else what they should do? Oh and just another tip that could help you in life, the earth is older than 6,000 years old.

Why is government involved in this? Well besides the constitutional issues, married people get lots of benefits from the federal government; filing joint tax returns as well as hospital rights and hundreds more.

Why can’t someone marry a dog or marry anyone? Because we say it is between two people. Marriage is a contract- are you also worried about people entering into contracts with dogs in other areas?

Slippery slope? This isn’t a real argument, we are a democracy of smart people, we have procedures in place to make sure slippery slopes are decided by a system full of checks and balances.

It was a book written by human beings who had no more divine knowledge than you or I. But it was written in a time of significantly less factual knowledge by groups of people with their own agendas.

Plenty of people base their life on it and that may be fine for them. But if you’re blessed with the gene that allows you to think for yourself and easily conclude how you should treat other human beings, then you can skip the book.

————————————————-
And so Christian couples who are not able to procreate are not allowed to have sex? Then all couples stop having sex after the female goes through menopause? Right. Sex does serve other purposes than procreation.

God gave each of us free will. If you and I choose to be believers, we have that right. If others choose not to believe, they have that right. It’s not for any of us to tell others who to be, how to live, or whom to marry. Live, let live, and leave the rest to God.
———————————————————-
I apologize. I should have put a comma.

Sex was created for procreation, AND a husband and wife to enjoy under a marraige approved by God.

So this “waiting to come out” gay NFL player emerges the same week the Supreme Court is ready to make two key rulings on the same subject? Just a coincidence, I’m certain.
In a related item, we’re still waiting for Harry Reid to divulge the name of the guy that claimed Romney didn’t pay taxes for 10 years. Elections over, might as well let us know.
I’m not suggesting that the “taxes weren’t paid guy” and the “waiting to come out gay guy” don’t exist, I’m flat-out guaranteeing it.
The media truly believes we are all gullible idiots.